Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wood v. Management, 93-1437 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 93-1437 Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 08, 1993
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: December 8, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 93-1437 JESSICA D. WOOD, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. MANAGEMENT SEARCH CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee. Rice v. New England College, 676 F.2d 9, ____ ___________________ 11 (1st Cir.
USCA1 Opinion









December 8, 1993
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 93-1437

JESSICA D. WOOD,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

MANAGEMENT SEARCH CORPORATION,

Defendant, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Jessica D. Wood on brief pro se.
_______________
Debra I. Lerner and Long, Racicot & Bourgeois on brief for
_________________ ___________________________
appellee.


____________________


____________________






















Per Curiam. Plaintiff Jessica D. Wood appeals the
___________

dismissal of her Title VII claim as not timely filed. We

find no error and affirm essentially for the reasons stated

in the district court's memorandum and order dated March 17,

1993. Wood admittedly received the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission's determination and 90-day right-to-

sue notice on September 21, 1990. This complaint was filed

91 days later, on December 21, 1990. Compliance with the

Title VII time for filing a federal suit, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(f)(1), is a statutory prerequisite: a complaint must be

filed within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC right-to-sue
_______

letter. "In the absence of a recognized equitable

consideration, the court cannot extend the limitation period

by even one day." Rice v. New England College, 676 F.2d 9,
____ ___________________

11 (1st Cir. 1982); see also Peete v. American Standard
___ ____ _____ _________________

Graphic, 885 F.2d 331, 331-32 (6th Cir. 1989); Harvey v. New
_______ ______ ___

Bern Police Dep't., 813 F.2d 652, 653 (4th Cir. 1987); Mosel
__________________ _____

v. Hills Dep't. Store, Inc., 789 F.2d 251, 252 (3d Cir.
_________________________

1986). As Wood does not claim that she had insufficient time

within which to act, and no equitable reasons are presented

to warrant disregarding the 90-day rule, the district court

correctly dismissed the complaint as untimely.

Affirmed.
________















Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer